> Uhh Satoshi is Nick Szabo...

My bet would rather be on Dave Kleiman

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Kleiman

His death 2013 fits well with the public disappearance of Satoshi Nakamoto. Also Dave Kleiman worked in computer forensics and was from very early on involved in the Bitcoin community.

It is well-known that Dave Kleiman and the "self-claimed Satoshi Nakamoto" Craig Steven Wright knew each other (Craig Steven Wright claimed that they collaborated when creating Bitcoin). Also the fact that Craig Steven Wright could convince people that are deeply involved in the Bitcoin community in a one-on-one interview that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, provides strong evidence that Craig Steven Wright knew lots of obscure things about Satoshi Nakamoto "that only Satoshi Nakamoto should be able to know". If he knew this information from Dave Kleinman, this can be plausibly explained.

Wei Dai's AMA makes me doubt that.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jgz/aalwa_ask_any_lesswronger_anythi...

Specifically this comment http://lesswrong.com/lw/jgz/aalwa_ask_any_lesswronger_anythi...

> No I don't think it's Szabo or anyone else whose name is known to me.

I have always thought the speculation about SN's identity suffered alarmingly from availability bias. Everyone wants to believe he's someone they know about. Someone who's extremely well-known for working on or writing about things extremely similar to Bitcoin. There are far more smart nobodies tinkering with things than there are top names working on those things.

Also suffers from a bias I'll call "Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare bias." The idea is that a notable thing must have been written by a high-status and well-credentialed person, and could not have been done by a talented no-name.

> The idea is that a notable thing must have been written by a high-status and well-credentialed person, and could not have been done by a talented no-name.

I think your reasoning is interesting. Nevertheless consider that if we hunt for SN, it is very likely that it is at least a person who knows more than a little bit about various topics that were necessary to implement Bitcoin (e.g. finance, cryptographic hashed data structures, existing protocols for crypto cash, ...). I agree that it is quite possible that this could also be a talented no-name, but I think this property provides a strong criterion to check if someone claimed that some specific person (who is a talented non-name) they have in mind is SN.

Also one would have to provide an explanation why such a person is not more well-known. It can be that he/she has a difficult personality. It can also be that he/she lives in a country where such a person will have a lot less opportunities etc. But these constraint again limits the circle of talented no-names that could be SN.

TLDR: Your reasoning is interesting, but your hypothesis has strong consequences.

I don't believe lack of notability needs any explanation at all. It's the default. I have plenty of [anecdotal] evidence that exceptional skill is one of many factors that might contribute to notability. Other factors include networking or self-promotion, timing, and chance. Being a lurker type myself, I've encountered many fellow lurkers in forums over the last 20 years, who demonstrated astounding expertise, but are afaik almost completely unknown in my industry. I can think of many more people who actually are at the top of the industry, but are relatively unknown simply because they do not give talks, blog, or write books. In case it wasn't obvious, my personal hypothesis is that SN was simply a very skilled lurker in the cypherpunk scene. I doubt he was Finney, Dai, or Szabo, but I suspect he was someone who, like myself, was well aware of them and hung out in the same forums and lists.

That's why I think the inventor of BitTorrent is the same as the one from Bitcoin